Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @04:21AM
from the but-we-were-friends dept.

New submitter andrew3 writes "Skype has allegedly handed the information of a 16-year-old boy to a security firm. The information was later handed over to Dutch law enforcement. No court order was served for the disclosure. The teenager was suspected of being part of a DDoS packet flood as a part of the Anonymous 'Operation Payback'."
According to the article, Skype voluntarily disclosed the information to the third party firm without any kind of police order, possibly violating a few privacy laws and their own policies.

Well, Microsoft has a history of busting botnets. I would not be surprised if they mined Skype data for related topics. However, I do think they deserve to get negative backlash for scanning private conversations.

Skype is an independent subsidiary of Microsoft, it is unlikely they had anything to do with this unless the order came from Ballmer himself.

From reading the fine article, Paypal employed a security firm to investigate this, that security firm also does work for Skype, while working for Paypal this security firm linked an attacker to his Skype username, then the security firm used its existing relationship with Skype to get the data on this Skype user.

Why should they? The title is perfectly understandable in at least 4 perfectly logical ways!

a) Information of Teenager of Skype Hand To Private Firmb) Teenager is Information of Skype Hand To Private Firmc) Skype Hand is Information of Teenager To Private Firmd) Skype Hand is Teenager is Information To Private Firm

Plus 5 additional ones if we introduce "was", and then 7 *more* with "has"!

Welcome to our Brave New World where IM products run in the background "out of the box" after your next software update- just waiting for a call....
Enjoy crystal clear HD cam fun with sneak and peek for any interested 3rd party.

They could have broken privacy laws with this but if they didn't: what if, based on the evidence that they had, they just simply thought the boy was being a major asswipe? There is no *obligation* to use Skype, right?

Police usually like to take the long view, track as many people as they can, turn the useful ones into traps or bait, get great PR and future funding.
Why go to court early? A wealthy family might get caught up, hire a better than average legal team thats will expose poor quality evidence.
Most parts of the world have very strict privacy laws and no company is free to decide anything about users data without a *real* court like document or some real time sensitive issue- again police/courts/govs can act ve

OK then, give me the correct plural and possessive for an object that belongs to a group of people called Chris (using "Chris" as the basis). How about an object belonging to a collective of women who like to identify themselves as "Ms." ?

The rules for apostrophes aren't as easy as a lot of Grammer Nazi's like to think it is. There are a bunch of rules, often contradictory where you have to learn which takes priority and it's compounded by vague "if it could confuse the reader" rules.

OK then, give me the correct plural and possessive for an object that belongs to a group of people called Chris (using "Chris" as the basis). How about an object belonging to a collective of women who like to identify themselves as "Ms." ?

The rules for apostrophes aren't as easy as a lot of Grammer Nazi's like to think it is. There are a bunch of rules, often contradictory where you have to learn which takes priority and it's compounded by vague "if it could confuse the reader" rules.

I'd wager most people would get them wrong or at least have to think fairly hard. In the case of " Chrises' " it's complicated enough for there to be no set rule about how it's pronounced (although most people would say 'Chrises' because 'Chriseses' sounds silly).

In the case of " Chrises' " it's complicated enough for there to be no set rule about how it's pronounced (although most people would say 'Chrises' because 'Chriseses' sounds silly).

Also, "Chriseses" adds letters that aren't there. There is a set rule about how it's pronounced: it's "Chrises". Weirdly, this is one of those cases in English where you pronounce the letters that are there. The apostrophe is not pronounced "es".

I repeat, there are no rules about if you pronounce a " s' " as it's own syllable or treat it as silent. It's all about what people think sounds right (and their accent).
An example is "Los Angeles' citizens". Lots of people would pronounce that as "Los angelezis". Generally it's better to say it as it could confuse the listener as to whether or not the word is being used as an adjective or a noun with a possesive.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. You pronounce the extra "s" if it's present.

You actually provide a good example. Normally, the correct possessive of "Los Angeles" would be "Los Angeles's". However, this is treated as an exception, since the extra "s" is considered difficult to pronounce. So the possessive actually follows the pronunciation: "Los Angeles'". In this case, knowing the exceptions for making possessives can be tricky -- but what *isn't* tricky is knowing how to pronounce it, as the exceptions

Why do people have so many problem's with apostrophe's? Its not difficult.

Since we're nit picking...I wanted to illustrate how easy it really is.

Sure, the vast majority of English speakers are unable to make proper use of the apostrophe at all times, but who cares? it's not difficult!

Just follow these not difficult rules, like everyone else:

Rule 1 - Use the apostrophe with contractions. The apostrophe is always placed at the spot where the letter(s) has been removed.
Examples: don't, isn't. You're right. She's a great teacher.

Rule 2 - Use the apostrophe to show possession. Place the apostrophe before the s to show singular possession.
Examples: one boy's hat. one woman's hat. one actress's hat. one child's hat. Ms. Chang's house

NOTE: Although names ending in s or an s sound are not required to have the second s added in possessive form, it is preferred.
Examples: Mr. Jones's golf clubs. Texas's weather. Ms. Straus's daughter. Jose Sanchez's artwork. Dr. Hastings's appointment (name is Hastings). Mrs. Lees's books (name is Lees)

Rule 3 - Use the apostrophe where the noun that should follow is implied.
Example: This was his father's, not his, jacket.

Rule 4 - To show plural possession, make the noun plural first. Then immediately use the apostrophe.
Examples: two boys' hats two women's hats. two actresses' hats. two children's hats. the Changs' house. the Joneses' golf clubs. the Strauses' daughter. the Sanchezes' artwork. the Hastingses' appointment. the Leeses' books.

Rule 5 - Do not use an apostrophe for the plural of a name.
Examples: We visited the Sanchezes in Los Angeles. The Changs have two cats and a dog.

Rule 6 - With a singular compound noun, show possession with 's at the end of the word.
Example: my mother-in-law's hat

Rule 7 - If the compound noun is plural, form the plural first and then use the apostrophe.
Example: my two brothers-in-law's hats

Rule 8 - Use the apostrophe and s after the second name only if two people possess the same item.
Examples: Cesar and Maribel's home is constructed of redwood. Cesar's and Maribel's job contracts will be renewed next year. Indicates separate ownership.
Cesar and Maribel's job contracts will be renewed next year. Indicates joint ownership of more than one contract.

Rule 9 - Never use an apostrophe with possessive pronouns: his, hers, its, theirs, ours, yours, whose. They already show possession so they do not require an apostrophe.

Correct: This book is hers, not yours.

Incorrect: Sincerely your's.

Rule 10 - The only time an apostrophe is used for it's is when it is a contraction for it is or it has.
Examples: It's a nice day. It's your right to refuse the invitation. It's been great getting to know you.

Rule 11 - The plurals for capital letters and numbers used as nouns are not formed with apostrophes.
Examples: She consulted with three M.D.s. BUT She went to three M.D.s' offices.
The apostrophe is needed here to show plural possessive.
She learned her ABCs.
the 1990s not the 1990's
the '90s or the mid-'70s not the '90's or the mid-'70's
She learned her times tables for 6s and 7s.

Exception:
Use apostrophes with capital letters and numbers when the meaning would be unclear otherwise.
Examples: Please dot your i's. You don't mean is. Ted couldn't distinguish between his 6's and 0's.
You need to use the apostrophe to indicate the plural of zero or it will look like the word Os.
To be consistent within a sentence, you would also use the apostrophe to indicate the plural of 6's.

Rule 12 - Use the possessive case in front of a gerund (-ing word).
Examples: Alex's skating was a joy to behold. This does not stop Joan's inspecting of our facilities next Thursday.

Rule 13 - If the gerund has a pronoun in front of it, use the possessive form of that pronoun.
Examples: I ap

For almost all mistakes, you only need to know rules 1, 2, 4, and 9. Rule 9 isn't even about apostrophes -- it's about possessives. Rule 10, for example, is completely redundant once you have rules 1 and 9.

My biggest problem with English is that I already know all of these rules, but because when I learned how to speak it I wasn't taught what a gerund is, the names for the various tenses and cases, or many of the other technical terms for the rules of grammar. I can apply the rules fine, but i'm buggered if I have to explain them!

Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.

Actually, as a native English speaker living in Germany, I find Germans make these kinds of errors significantly less than native English speakers.

Germans make a lot of other mistakes in grammar, spelling and so on (including some hilarious mistranslations when they think in German and speak English); but things like the apostrophe rules don't seem to be as much of a problem for them (or at least, far easier than me dealing with German comma rules...).

Heh, as a non-native English speaker living in Germany I find that Germans make these kind of errors often;-) Even worse, sometimes young people use the apostrophe as a possessive form in the German language, where it should not be used.

However, a lot of languages don't use apostrophe at all (Slavic languages, Asian languages etc) and those people tend to confuse its usage much more.

Understanding it is one thing (though there are confusing exceptions such as - what's the possessive form from the plural noun "wolves"?), not having an 'eye' for spotting errors is another. A wrong usage of the word "its" does not get picked up by spell-checking and a foreigner can easily overlook it while skimming through his/her text.You are probably better at this because in Finland people get spoon-fed English language from the TV from an early age.

Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.

Actually, as a native English speaker living in Germany, I find Germans make these kinds of errors significantly less than native English speakers.

This can be easily explained: English as a foreign language is usually taught in primary schools and (also) in written form. Native speakers learn the basics of the language when they're little kids from their parents before they are able to write. Even when you start going to school, verbal communication is still used more (think of how many words you say during your day, even for insignificants tasks, and how many you write). If this kind of spelling mistakes are not corrected by teachers or parents, they

Same with Spanish and English. Often people who learn English as as second language (when properly educated) know the rules of grammar better than native speakers. I learned to read, write, and speak Spanish when I was 20 and I know that I write it a hell of a lot better than my native friends. The well educated ones accent properly, but most of the lower middle class to poor can barely use proper written grammar in their own language. I know a lot of poor native English speakers who have terrible gramm

Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.

Why do so many English people have trouble believing people can learn other languages properly? My usual language is Spanish. I write English quite a lot but I can't remember the last time I spoke it.... certainly not in the last month.

Why do so many people have trouble believing that just because they are skilled in one area, everybody should be? Again - I'm not against correcting somebody, but is it really *that* surprising to you that most people don't speak flawless English? Welcome to teh internets, I guess...

Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.

I accept that there are many people here who speak English as a second language (E2L). However, for a sample size of one (a mate's Polish wife), I have found that they are more than eager to learn when their pronunciation, grammar, or use of slang is inappropriate or incorrect. I certainly wouldn't call an E2L speaker a "dumbass" for not knowing such things, but I would point out the mistake with an explaination of why it is incorrect, if I am capable.

Why do so many non-native English speakers who write broken English are surprised and annoyed when people make them notice their errors ? Learn from your errors.
Practise what you preach. That should be:
Why are so many non-native English speakers who write broken English surprised and annoyed when people make them notice their errors ? Learn from your errors.

I think it's you who has the problem, sir, although you both seem to be suffering from an inappropriately low level of social restraint. Whoops, so do I, I guess it's John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Principle at work...

The poster who is annoyed by incorrect apostrophe usage is displaying traits that probably make him a good programmer or other engineer - attention to detail, and caring about correctness. He might have a few things to learn about social interaction, but in general I find that most people of this type can learn some simple rules to keep out of social trouble.

(I'm not saying the rules aren't complex, just that people of this type, myself included, are not disposed to learning all the complex heuristics and bodies of communal "knowledge" like which actor cheated on which actress, etc., that pass as "etiquette" these days).

Whereas you are just being an asshole, but alas, you don't seem to know it. I'm prepared to bet that the number of people who dislike you is *much* higher than you imagine it to be, and at least 2 higher today.

What does this have to do with Skype being proprietary? An open source company could just as easily handed information over, assuming they ran a service which required payment.

In any event, if you read the article.. It turns out that the security firm was employed by both paypal and Skype, which would mean that the firm would fall under each companies privacy policies and would be allowed to access the data legally.

The security company, however, should not have given the information to the police without an order, although it's a bit fuzzy as to whether they are legally bound by the privacy policy of their employer.

You are right, this is actually a win to centralized protocols. We need a standard encrypted p2p communication (im / voip / file sharing / etc) to be widely adopted asap. And then protest / revolt when they try to outlaw it.

You are right, this is actually a win to centralized protocols. We need a standard encrypted p2p communication (im / voip / file sharing / etc) to be widely adopted asap. And then protest / revolt when they try to outlaw it.

If you encrypt the IP address of the dude you're trying to call, how do you expect Skype (or your voip provider of choice) to route the call properly?

That is why if you want to make sure your messages are secure, you write them down on a piece of paper, put them into an envelope, and drop it into a random mailbox. Of course to be secure, you also have to encrypt the senders and receivers address on the outside of the envelope.

In any event, if you read the article.. It turns out that the security firm was employed by both paypal and Skype, which would mean that the firm would fall under each companies privacy policies and would be allowed to access the data legally.

No.This violates EU Privacy law. Privacy law requires a specific purpose, it is not legal to say that "we share your personal data with third parties" in a contract: the parties must be specified. This is especially the case for terms and conditions documents*.

* I'm not sure if this distincition exists in American or even European law, but in Dutch consumer law (where it is referred to as "Algemene Voowaarden", literally translating to 'general conditions': these are the typical EULA/I-bought-something-in-the-store type documents that no-one actually reads), there is an additional blacklist (and "greylist") of terms and conditions that are declared dubious. Such terms include stripping customers of certain rights.

Privacy law requires a specific purpose, it is not legal to say that "we share your personal data with third parties" in a contract: the parties must be specified. This is especially the case for terms and conditions documents*.

.Our primary purpose in collecting information is to provide you with a safe, smooth, efficient, and customized experience. Skype collects and uses, or has third party service providers acting on Skype’s behalf collecting and using, personal data relating to you, as permitted or necessary to:--snip--protect your and Skype’s interests, including in particular to enforce our Terms of Service and prevent and fight against fraud, (together, the Purposes)....Skype may disclose personal information to respond to legal requirements, exercise our legal rights or defend against legal claims, to protect Skype’s interests, fight against fraud and to enforce our policies or to protect anyone's rights, property, or safety

How we share personal information with other parties... Service providers under contract who help with our business operations such as fraud prevention, bill collection, marketing and technology services. Our contracts dictate that these service providers only use your information in connection with the services they perform for us and not for their own benefit.

So you're saying that under EU law, every contractor a company uses must be listed in a privacy policy and TOS? I would think that would require them to be updated almost minutely for some companies... that seems very unworkable.

Everything actually. US based global corporations have this habit of handing out users information at the drop of a hat. They do so, so they will not have problems with the law (as if). Because Skype received a request from somebody else and global corporations easily hand out information they just did so. There is quite a bit of spying going on!

BEEP sorry wrong answer. It does not matter. The problem is that Skype is owned by a US global corporation. The company thus answers to the US laws since that is what applies for it. If anything else happens the US global corporation would rather pay a bit of money to silence the person than actually care about the laws. I can understand why they are doing this for if the US global corporation pisses off the US laws then they would be susceptible to being shut down.